{"id":155881,"date":"2026-07-06T14:41:35","date_gmt":"2026-07-06T22:41:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/07\/06\/judge-breyer-denies-elon-musks-bid-to-toss-twitter-fraud-verdict-over-weed-joke-conspiracy-theory\/"},"modified":"2026-07-06T14:41:35","modified_gmt":"2026-07-06T22:41:35","slug":"judge-breyer-denies-elon-musks-bid-to-toss-twitter-fraud-verdict-over-weed-joke-conspiracy-theory","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/07\/06\/judge-breyer-denies-elon-musks-bid-to-toss-twitter-fraud-verdict-over-weed-joke-conspiracy-theory\/","title":{"rendered":"Judge Breyer Denies Elon Musk\u2019s Bid To Toss Twitter Fraud Verdict Over Weed Joke Conspiracy Theory"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
(Photo by Apu Gomes\/Getty Images)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

\u201cBuyer\u2019s remorse is not an exception to the securities laws.\u201d<\/p>\n

So begins Judge Charles Breyer\u2019s order denying pretty much all of Elon Musk\u2019s post-trial motions seeking to side step the jury verdict that found the no-longer-quite-a-trillionaire liable for fraud. It more or less tells you how the following 38 pages are going to go. Back in March, a jury found<\/a> that Musk defrauded Twitter shareholders when he spent May 2022 throwing water on his own $44 billion plan to acquire Twitter. Musk publicly posted that the acquisition plan was \u201ctemporarily on hold\u201d pending a look at the platform\u2019s bot numbers. Even though the bot numbers were one of his original justifications for the deal. A slam dunk lawsuit by Twitter later<\/a>, and Musk went through with the deal and turned the microblogging platform into America\u2019s home for hoods off racism<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Musk faces damages upward of $2.6 billion, which is \u2014 on paper \u2014 chump change for him. When the jury found against him, his Quinn Emanuel lawyers called the verdict a \u201ca bump in the road\u201d<\/a> and promised that Musk would be vindicated.<\/p>\n

The vindication is running behind schedule.<\/p>\n

Musk moved for judgment as a matter of law, for a new trial, to decertify the class, and to force a second phase of the case in which a special master would comb through individual investors\u2019 reliance one by one. Breyer granted exactly one thing \u2014 a matter of law judgment on the May 17 tweet because the plaintiffs\u2019 own damages expert, Dr. Tabak, had declined to offer a price-maintenance opinion, leaving that one tweet without expert support. So Musk secured a solitary victory from an economist being cautious, more than any lawyer proving persuasive.<\/p>\n

Everything else got the back of the hand.<\/p>\n

Musk insisted he sincerely believed Twitter was lying about bots. Musk knew Twitter measured bots against its monetizable daily active users and kept insisting the true number was higher anyway, because bots were the thing he personally noticed scrolling around:<\/p>\n

\n

Q. You\u2019re using the wrong denominator, though, aren\u2019t you? A. It\u2019s \u2014 I\u2019m using the number that people can experience.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Musk\u2019s vibe-based defense did not sway the jury. The fact that Musk kept bleating that he would fix Twitter\u2019s bot problem if he bought the company never made his 11th hour whoa, whoa, whoa, what\u2019s with all these bots?<\/em> defense very convincing. The jury was free to conclude the bot panic was a pretext for a case of cold feet after Tesla stock tanked\u2026 and it did.<\/p>\n

Judge Breyer laid out the three doors in front of Musk on May 13, 2022. Musk could have chosen to \u201csay nothing, comment on the true state of affairs that the deal was proceeding as usual, or make a misrepresentation.\u201d The jury determined that Elon picked door number 3. Much of Musk\u2019s motion contended that the gap between the true state of affairs and a misrepresentation was too subtle to support the verdict. Judge Breyer disagreed.<\/p>\n

But the most fascinating argument was the Grand Blue Ink Conspiracy. The jury wrote 97 of 98 damages figures in black and one number in blue<\/a>: $4.20. Alex Spiro argued that because the panel had flagged the same weed slang that Elon Musk thinks is super funny, the jury intended to \u201csend a message,\u201d proving that the jurors never intended to give Musk a fair trial.<\/p>\n

Breyer had several answers, but the cleanest is that \u201cThe jury used different pens at different times when filling out the verdict form, not only when writing the number 4.20.\u201d Elon Musk lost up and down the case and the thing that broke the billionaire was the idea that common folk might have more than one Bic around.<\/p>\n

Though Breyer also threw in that if it were a joke, it\u2019s one that Musk invited since the $54.20 offer price Musk himself put on the table was a 420 joke. His own banker said so on the stand, testifying that the team \u201cknew Mr. Musk had joked about 420 quite a bit, and so we threw it out there as 54.20.\u201d<\/p>\n

So Musk baked the weed gag into the deal, and then asked a federal judge to blow off a nine-figure verdict because jurors in San Francisco<\/em> understood the reference.<\/p>\n

But the load-bearing flaw in the whole \u201cthe jury hated me\u201d theory is one Breyer keeps returning to: the jury cleared Musk on half the case<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\n

It defies common sense that the jury could be so prejudiced against Musk yet absolve him of liability when they had the chance to send a message.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

A runaway jury bent on nuking Musk does not stop to acquit him on two of four questions.<\/p>\n

Beyond that, a hefty chunk of the motion reasserts arguments Breyer already rejected. The judge noticed that a litigant \u201ccannot just reassert arguments that have already been rejected in hope of a different result,\u201d and, borrowing a line from another court, that litigants \u201cplay with fire if they raise the same arguments over and over and fail to acknowledge prior adverse rulings.\u201d<\/p>\n

Across every page of the damages fight, Musk attacked Dr. Tabak\u2019s methodology, his event study, his disaggregation, his window, his everything. While the weed joke conspiracy draws more attention, the expert fight is Musk\u2019s strongest argument. It\u2019s just also his dumbest because, as Breyer notes \u2014 with exasperation dripping off the page \u2014 \u201cMusk did not call a rebuttal expert \u2014 or any expert for that matter.\u201d<\/p>\n

All the money in the world, and skimping on hiring an expert. Maybe he was worried he\u2019d have buyer\u2019s remorse.<\/p>\n

(Order on the next page\u2026)<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The post Judge Breyer Denies Elon Musk\u2019s Bid To Toss Twitter Fraud Verdict Over Weed Joke Conspiracy Theory<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"
(Photo by Apu Gomes\/Getty Images)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

\u201cBuyer\u2019s remorse is not an exception to the securities laws.\u201d<\/p>\n

So begins Judge Charles Breyer\u2019s order denying pretty much all of Elon Musk\u2019s post-trial motions seeking to side step the jury verdict that found the no-longer-quite-a-trillionaire liable for fraud. It more or less tells you how the following 38 pages are going to go. Back in March, a jury found<\/a> that Musk defrauded Twitter shareholders when he spent May 2022 throwing water on his own $44 billion plan to acquire Twitter. Musk publicly posted that the acquisition plan was \u201ctemporarily on hold\u201d pending a look at the platform\u2019s bot numbers. Even though the bot numbers were one of his original justifications for the deal. A slam dunk lawsuit by Twitter later<\/a>, and Musk went through with the deal and turned the microblogging platform into America\u2019s home for hoods off racism<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Musk faces damages upward of $2.6 billion, which is \u2014 on paper \u2014 chump change for him. When the jury found against him, his Quinn Emanuel lawyers called the verdict a \u201ca bump in the road\u201d<\/a> and promised that Musk would be vindicated.<\/p>\n

The vindication is running behind schedule.<\/p>\n

Musk moved for judgment as a matter of law, for a new trial, to decertify the class, and to force a second phase of the case in which a special master would comb through individual investors\u2019 reliance one by one. Breyer granted exactly one thing \u2014 a matter of law judgment on the May 17 tweet because the plaintiffs\u2019 own damages expert, Dr. Tabak, had declined to offer a price-maintenance opinion, leaving that one tweet without expert support. So Musk secured a solitary victory from an economist being cautious, more than any lawyer proving persuasive.<\/p>\n

Everything else got the back of the hand.<\/p>\n

Musk insisted he sincerely believed Twitter was lying about bots. Musk knew Twitter measured bots against its monetizable daily active users and kept insisting the true number was higher anyway, because bots were the thing he personally noticed scrolling around:<\/p>\n

\n

Q. You\u2019re using the wrong denominator, though, aren\u2019t you? A. It\u2019s \u2014 I\u2019m using the number that people can experience.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Musk\u2019s vibe-based defense did not sway the jury. The fact that Musk kept bleating that he would fix Twitter\u2019s bot problem if he bought the company never made his 11th hour whoa, whoa, whoa, what\u2019s with all these bots?<\/em> defense very convincing. The jury was free to conclude the bot panic was a pretext for a case of cold feet after Tesla stock tanked\u2026 and it did.<\/p>\n

Judge Breyer laid out the three doors in front of Musk on May 13, 2022. Musk could have chosen to \u201csay nothing, comment on the true state of affairs that the deal was proceeding as usual, or make a misrepresentation.\u201d The jury determined that Elon picked door number 3. Much of Musk\u2019s motion contended that the gap between the true state of affairs and a misrepresentation was too subtle to support the verdict. Judge Breyer disagreed.<\/p>\n

But the most fascinating argument was the Grand Blue Ink Conspiracy. The jury wrote 97 of 98 damages figures in black and one number in blue<\/a>: $4.20. Alex Spiro argued that because the panel had flagged the same weed slang that Elon Musk thinks is super funny, the jury intended to \u201csend a message,\u201d proving that the jurors never intended to give Musk a fair trial.<\/p>\n

Breyer had several answers, but the cleanest is that \u201cThe jury used different pens at different times when filling out the verdict form, not only when writing the number 4.20.\u201d Elon Musk lost up and down the case and the thing that broke the billionaire was the idea that common folk might have more than one Bic around.<\/p>\n

Though Breyer also threw in that if it were a joke, it\u2019s one that Musk invited since the $54.20 offer price Musk himself put on the table was a 420 joke. His own banker said so on the stand, testifying that the team \u201cknew Mr. Musk had joked about 420 quite a bit, and so we threw it out there as 54.20.\u201d<\/p>\n

So Musk baked the weed gag into the deal, and then asked a federal judge to blow off a nine-figure verdict because jurors in San Francisco<\/em> understood the reference.<\/p>\n

But the load-bearing flaw in the whole \u201cthe jury hated me\u201d theory is one Breyer keeps returning to: the jury cleared Musk on half the case<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\n

It defies common sense that the jury could be so prejudiced against Musk yet absolve him of liability when they had the chance to send a message.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

A runaway jury bent on nuking Musk does not stop to acquit him on two of four questions.<\/p>\n

Beyond that, a hefty chunk of the motion reasserts arguments Breyer already rejected. The judge noticed that a litigant \u201ccannot just reassert arguments that have already been rejected in hope of a different result,\u201d and, borrowing a line from another court, that litigants \u201cplay with fire if they raise the same arguments over and over and fail to acknowledge prior adverse rulings.\u201d<\/p>\n

Across every page of the damages fight, Musk attacked Dr. Tabak\u2019s methodology, his event study, his disaggregation, his window, his everything. While the weed joke conspiracy draws more attention, the expert fight is Musk\u2019s strongest argument. It\u2019s just also his dumbest because, as Breyer notes \u2014 with exasperation dripping off the page \u2014 \u201cMusk did not call a rebuttal expert \u2014 or any expert for that matter.\u201d<\/p>\n

All the money in the world, and skimping on hiring an expert. Maybe he was worried he\u2019d have buyer\u2019s remorse.<\/p>\n

(Order on the next page\u2026)<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

1<\/strong> 2<\/a>Next \u00bb<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

(Photo by Apu Gomes\/Getty Images) \u201cBuyer\u2019s remorse is not an exception to the securities laws.\u201d So begins Judge Charles Breyer\u2019s order denying pretty much all of Elon Musk\u2019s post-trial motions seeking to side step the jury verdict that found the no-longer-quite-a-trillionaire liable for fraud. It more or less tells you how the following 38 pages […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":155855,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-155881","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Headshot-300x200-2VrL0w.jpg?fit=300%2C200&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/155881","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=155881"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/155881\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/155855"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=155881"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=155881"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=155881"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}